When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

But instead, they usually conflate these two:

QUOTE (Mark 10:14&15+)

14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, ďLet the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.Ē

QUOTE (Proverbs 3:5+)

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

And entirely miss the part about it being the child-like humility, rather than a simpleton's understanding.

QUOTE (Matthew 18:4+)

Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

IMO, the neoteny comes down to continuing to buy the "because I said so" argument, whether from parents, government, or God/religious authority.

NymphaeaAlba

6th June 2011 - 08:14 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+)

1 Corinthians 13:11-When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

I am curious. So please, do not get defensive.

Panenthiesm is universalistic supernaturalism, right? Isnít it a sophisticated defense mechanism, or an enchanted childish dream, as well?

Do you feel that reality is the realm of potentiality from which the physical receives its form and structure?

You said that the discussion of dark energy is beyond what we currently know but so is cosmogony. Anything beyond the big bang is speculative.

Why, exactly, does the universe, or "the all", need to be tagged as God? It does imply that the totality of things requires a supreme intelligent being for structure. Why must a creator be introduced?

It is enchanting, and charming, and we all feel a sense of awe towards existence, but I donít understand why we should call the universe God? On the surface, it seems harmless, but itís presumptuous, and still identifies with a supreme being. Donít you think it may be a form of self-delusion, too?

synthsin75

6th June 2011 - 09:16 PM

QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jun 6 2011, 02:14 PM)

QUOTE (synthsin75+)

1 Corinthians 13:11-When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

I am curious. So please, do not get defensive.

Panenthiesm is universalistic supernaturalism, right? Isnít it a sophisticated defense mechanism, or an enchanted childish dream, as well?

Do you feel that reality is the realm of potentiality from which the physical receives its form and structure?

You said that the discussion of dark energy is beyond what we currently know but so is cosmogony. Anything beyond the big bang is speculative.

Why, exactly, does the universe, or "the all", need to be tagged as God? It does imply that the totality of things requires a supreme intelligent being for structure. Why must a creator be introduced?

It is enchanting, and charming, and we all feel a sense of awe towards existence, but I donít understand why we should call the universe God? On the surface, it seems harmless, but itís presumptuous, and still identifies with a supreme being. Donít you think it may be a form of self-delusion, too?

IMO, panentheism is simply an expression of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, where pantheism is merely the sum of parts without any emergent synergy. Like pantheism, there's no necessity to view panentheism as truly theistic, and thus no needed supernatural implications.

As panentheism pertains to neoteny, I can't say I see any inherent similarities, as a wish fulfillment with a restrictive moralizing as payment. You'll have to explain to me where you see the specific wish fulfillment.

Who said anything about a "supreme intelligent being"? Or even a personified creator? It seems you fall prey to allowing Christians to define the entire scope of what may be God. Obviously if you understand pantheism, you should be aware that the supremacy of the notion of God doesn't necessitate a single being.

The only harm done is to the sensitivities of the reactionary who insists upon jumping to Abrahamic-religious conclusions based solely on that single word: God. Only within that context is the notion of God anywhere near that constrained a definition.

QUOTE

You said that the discussion of dark energy is beyond what we currently know but so is cosmogony.† Anything beyond the big bang is speculative.

Why don't you post that in the relevant thread, if you really want a reply?

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youíll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.